15 February 2017

Lutheran Sacralism: Veith on Economics

GE Veith is a retired professor, formerly associated with Virginia's
Patrick Henry College. A conservative Lutheran he has long been associated with
Evangelical and Dominionist projects from World Magazine to Wheaton, the
Heritage Foundation and Patrick Henry. His writings primarily focus on the
Christian relationship to arts and culture. The link is to a talk on economics
given by Veith at the 2016 Just and Sinner Conference.

I respond due to the fact that he's a popular teacher and the
message he presents is one that resonates with contemporary Evangelicalism. As
he represents a posture and theology contrary to what is taught in the New
Testament, it needs to be challenged. I hope my brief comments will at the very
least introduce a different set of categories and concepts for readers to
interact with and consider whether Veith is representing the Christianity of
the Apostles or something quite different.

Veith offers a host of interesting categories but none of
them happen to be derived from Scripture. He speaks of 'estates', 'vocation',
and even the all too common 'stewardship' and yet even when these terms can be found
in a concordance, a cursory glance will demonstrate they are not being used in
the text of Scripture in the same way they are being used to communicate the
Lutheran paradigm.

It can be stated without equivocation or even hesitation that
the way Veith speaks about the Church's relationship to culture is nowhere
reflected in the New Testament. It's simply not how Christ or the Apostles
speak nor are the categories even remotely congruous. In fact Veith represents
a school of thought and a general way of thinking that is actually quite contrary to what the New Testament
teaches.

What we're given are a series of academic thought-exercises,
worked out systems and models that seem coherent but neither match Scripture
nor real world experience. The Fall is paid lip service as a reality though it
is never taken seriously into account. Instead were given a somewhat
patronising and certainly pedestrian picture of the glories of Reformation
produced Middle Class life akin to what we find in a Richard Scarry children's
book. Everyone has their happy little jobs and place in society and this all
demonstrates a wonderful harmony and (we're told) this is the means by which
God is building His Kingdom.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It needs to be stated plainly that Luther and the Magisterial
Reformers were wrong when it comes to culture. They were still mired in the
Sacralist model of Christendom that arose in the decades after Constantine
extended not only tolerance but favour toward Christianity and it became the
normalised (and syncretised) expression of Roman culture. In this model the
Kingdom is defined in Non-Redemptive terms, it's something other than the
special salvific and sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit.

The Scripture certainly employs and endorses the use of
means. God uses various outward temporal forms and orders for the purpose of
sustaining this present evil age. The Church is given special means that are
Word-activated as it were and thus only apprehensible by those who have been
granted the Spirit-transforming gift of faith. These means are not available to
those who are unbelievers and this antithesis is something completely lost to
Veith and those like him. They will at times pay lip service to a notion of
antithesis but it's very clear they don't actually grasp the concept, nor
believe it and their rejection of it is certainly reflected in their thought
and the watered down way they would apply it.

Christ mediates the means, something Veith seems to
acknowledge but he then applies this mediation in general or extra-covenantal
terms, to the society, nation and culture. There is no suggestion of this in
Scripture. God Himself ordains the means. To label various facets of common
life and society as somehow God-ordained (other than in general Providential
terms) is without Scriptural warrant and as a speculative exercise is de facto is a rejection of Sola
Scriptura. While this extra-Scripturalism is common enough within Lutheran
thought it must be pointed out and indeed lamented that many Reformed and
Evangelicals who pay lip service to the idea of Scripture Alone follow the same
pattern.

Romans 13 is one of only very few examples of God explicitly
using human means or institutions, that is the state, to create the conditions
that benefit even believers on this earth. But if it is to be rightly
understood as part of the Common Grace order, then it is certainly something
less than holy. Veith and other Dominionists seem to believe Common Grace is
the springboard or tool to transform the Common into the Holy. Rather the
Common is a temporary arrangement, during this period of Divine longsuffering
and will be eliminated at the Eschaton with the rest of man's works and in the
hereafter it will never more come to mind. Such a temporal regime is certainly
not the province of the Holy Spirit. It is not a fruit or product of the
Gospel. Were it so, it would survive into the Age to Come. There are those
particularly in the Dutch Reformed tradition that have embraced this rather
egregious notion.

Why are these orderly conditions necessary? Clearly it is for
the spread of the Gospel. The passage nowhere suggests the state is holy. As
we've pointed out countless times the ministerial
aspect of the state is clearly reflective of the same analogy found in the Old
Testament with respect to Achaemenid Persia under Cyrus, Assyria (the rod of
God), or even Babylon, the seat of evil. Neronic Rome despite its thoroughly
Babylonian-style wickedness still served a purpose. Even a state with Nero was
actually better than no state at all. This is quite disconcerting to those who
have embraced the error of Libertarianism but it is nevertheless true. And in
general terms, in terms of principle, even a Neronic state will for the most
part leave the good alone and go after those who breed chaos and evil. States
clearly are dynamic and are ever moving toward a rank bestial quality wherein
they demand worship and complete obedience. While this is deplorable it is not
the Christian's task to take up the vengeance-sword. Rather we trust in
providence that the other powers that come to be will once more bring stability
and order. The beast has many crowned heads. They vie for power and devour one
another and thus it will always be until our Lord returns.

Our task is not to take dominion but to bear witness. We do
not seek to wield power (even incrementally) but rather we bear witness in
eschewing it. We quench the vitality of the worldly powers by despising all
they have to offer. We suffer and are willing to die. Bearing the cross, we
despise the sword... and the approval of those who bear it. We live as
strangers and aliens even amid their evil worldly order. The notion that we are
somehow to appropriate the system of this fallen age or that it in some sense
represents God's Kingdom is alien to the whole of Scripture.

Paul contrasts the Christian's motivation and conduct with
that of the state. Nowhere is it for a moment suggested that we are to serve
it, aid it, or embrace some kind of notion of citizenship. On the contrary we
are largely divested from the Babylon-projects of culture and instead live as pilgrims
laying up our treasures in heaven.

No doubt Abraham perhaps our most poignant model in this
regard was a bad citizen, a poor steward in terms of the cultural setting in
which he lived. He should have been labouring to transform Canaan!

Veith and those of like mind have erected what can only be
described as a massive edifice built atop a very shaky and dubious
interpretation of Romans 13. This titanic structure is hanging onto and dependent
on one very shaky hook. Even a casual read of the New Testament will belie
their claims and expose their model for what it really is, a house of cards, a
paper castle. It's a philosophical exercise generated by people motivated by
unbiblical concerns. By asking the wrong questions they go looking for answers
that are not there and if one follows this Veith lecture closely, one thing is
abundantly clear... Scripture is not part of the paradigm. He doesn't quote it
because he has nothing to quote.

Veith's Kingdom is built by unbelievers working in tandem
with the Church. The 'called out'
Ecclesia instead becomes 'called in'
as the world and indeed even the very culture of the Bestial powers is incorporated
and appropriated. The lost Beast-worshippers become co-labourers with the
Church in building God's Kingdom. Once again this is the very imagery we're
presented with in Revelation 17 and elsewhere.

At about the 20 minute mark one cannot but be startled by his
statement that equates the work of the pastor with that of the farmer. Just as
the pastor conveys the Word the farmer conveys food. It's all the same holy
service, i.e. acts of worship.

Culture building and common labours which contribute to
civilisation are equated with the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

This not only contradicts the teaching of Scripture with
regard to this world, which is passing away, will be burned in fire, and will
not be remembered or come to mind but whether he means to or not his teaching
denigrates the ministry of Spirit. It is quite literally a teaching that must
be labeled as sacrilege. While the farmer does good, necessary and even
honourable work, it is part of a system or order that will perish. The growing
of food is ordinary. One need not be a Christian to do it. Does Veith not
realise he has denigrated the Word and treated it and the Covenant as common...
as the chaff that is blown away or the scraps fed to swine?

For the Christian husbandman who lives by the plow his real
calling is not to be a farmer. That is incidental. His calling is to be a
Christian and it his life-testimony, his witness by word and deed that builds
the Kingdom. The pastor (so-called) is able by God's grace and by the
recognition of the Church to exercise this holy work on a larger scale. He is
granted authority but with it a greater burden and responsibility. He is not an
aristocrat, a spiritual lord or clergyman. He is shepherd who leads by example
and labours in humility as one who is slave to Christ and a servant to the
flock. The Lutheran concern to legitimise the regular or common man was valid vis-à-vis
the Roman sacerdotal system but the Magisterial model in baptising culture goes
too far the other way and equally
destroys the teaching of Scripture.

The Magisterial Reformation's championing and celebration of
common life as opposed to the holy order/sacerdotalist notions found within
Romanism present a false dichotomy. Sacralist Rome incidentally is far more
complex and able to accommodate both the anti-worldly ascetic practice of
monasticism along with the virtual baptising of statecraft and war in its
flawed and even wicked notions of chivalry and crusade. Rome has never fully
reconciled the contradictory tendencies and impulses within its tent and thus
has a far more broad and dynamic tradition when it comes to these questions.
The Protestant attack on the Roman position is often guilty of caricature.

Nevertheless both systems are false and represent deviations
from what the New Testament teaches.

When commenting on the US system Veith demonstrates a
somewhat lame understanding of what it is, how it works and interestingly never
questions whether or not it's Biblically legitimate or reflects its values. If
this is worldview thinking, then it's less than impressive. One is left with
the notion that what is really going on is an exercise in cultural affirmation
and vindication. It's a victory lap regarding the many so-called glories of
Western Civilisation minus any sort of deep let alone sanctified reflection as
to what it is or what it means.

Participation in the culture is indeed valid. We have to live
in the world and we're told by Paul that it's impossible to escape it,
including its wickedness. Permission and a degree of necessity are a lot
different than a notion of cultural endeavours being 'service' which defines
them as Kingdom tasks or acts of worship. In fact the very passages that exhort
us to do all to the glory of God may indeed call us to restraint, denial and cultural
non-participation. Discernment demands a questioning of whether or not what we
do harms others or leads people to stumble. The Veith-Dominionist model cannot
accommodate these categories. Culture cannot be abandoned, it is the Kingdom
awaiting transformation.

Again there is no concept of the Christian calling to be pilgrims.
The Scriptures only utilise the terms calling
and vocation when referencing our
life-absorbing task and duty to be Christians. Veith takes it as how to think
of our various spheres of life in Christian terms. That's actually an
inversion. We are to think of ourselves in terms of being Christians and that
should therefore shape and define all we do... and perhaps what we don't do.
The exclusionary aspect which I'm citing is directly tied to our pilgrim
status, suffering, persecution and the ultimately the reality that this world
is not our home. The New Heavens and Earth that await us only appear when
Christ comes in fiery judgment. The notion that this world will be transformed
or that our cultural endeavours are part of the Age to Come is not taught in
the Scripture. The glory of the nations is not referring to cultural
attainments.

Veith does get one thing right. Weber's analysis of the
Protestant Work Ethic is flawed. Veith uses the occasion to attack Calvinism
and yet I've never known the Reformed to build their very similar concept of
vocation on the idea of confirming predestination. Their arguments are actually
quite similar to Veith although in some quarters a greater emphasis is placed
on dominion. The heart of the Vocation-doctrine is Sacralism, the confusion of
culture with the Kingdom of God or to put it another way the sanctification of
culture. The Magisterial Reformation had no intention of breaking with the
Christendom model. It hoped to reform it and modify it but the basic
assumptions that had reigned in Catholicism were retained and if anything
enhanced and amplified.

Veith takes a wrong turn again when it comes to Adam Smith.
He falls into the all too common Evangelical error of trying to equate The
Invisible Hand with God's Providence. That's not at all what Smith meant. He
viewed it more in terms of a mechanism or law of nature, something that
functioned in a Deistic fashion that operated automatically without reference
to Providence or Divine Intervention.

At 29:00 Veith tries to re-cast the market and what motivates
it in terms of man serving man. This reflects the common Pelagian view which
all Sacralist-Constantinians fall into. Their positive view of culture leads
them to embrace academic models that cast motivations in terms of a general
harmonious system. The truth is the world is dog-eat-dog. For the most part people
are not serving one another. Their so-called service and consideration for the
fellow man is rooted as Smith said in self-interest. Smith is right in a
bestial fallen sort of way. That's how the world works but that doesn't make it
right and Christians should certainly not ratify let alone sanctify this way of
approaching the world. Instead we acknowledge this is how the world is and we
conscientiously reject it and live a very different sort of life. As pilgrims
we do not flourish in Babylon. We live our lives, work honestly with our hands,
eat our daily bread and bear witness by word and deed.

Veith has misread the New Testament on a massive scale is but
one of many teachers that satisfies the itching ears of those who think
godliness is gain, a means to security, respectability and ultimately power.
His world-affirming understanding of Christianity is patently unbiblical and
must be categorically rejected.